Following an inquiry by retired judge Michael Mallia, a former police inspector, Daniel Zammit, was found to have acted unethically in a heavily “compromised” murder investigation involving a relative of the Gaffarena family, which saw the crime scene destroyed and other important evidence delayed or tampered with.
Moreover, Inspector Zammit’s undeclared, extensive business relationships with the Gaffarena family led the former judge to recommend the Attorney General look into the possibility that he may have traded in influence, a criminal act.
The tangled web exposed by Judge Mallia also cast a searchlight on the position of Inspector Zammit’s father, former Acting Police Commissioner Ray Zammit, who had been forced to resign from the post following the mishandling of the shooting incident involving former minister Manuel Mallia’s driver.
Judge Mallia’s inquiry revealed that Ray Zammit, together with his two police inspector sons, Daniel and Roderick, had held shares in a number of companies with prominent entrepreneurs – including the Gaffarena family and a well-known Paceville nightclub owner – which conflicted with their positions as policemen.
Judge Mallia concluded that Ray Zammit should have faced internal disciplinary action before leaving the Malta Police Force to become Acting Director of Prisons and to head a new government agency overseeing the wardens system.
It is against this murky background of three senior police officers belonging to the same family – one of whom was the Acting Police Commissioner before reverting to Deputy Commissioner – that Ray Zammit’s current appointment as head of the local warden enforcement agency should be viewed. Curiously, Judge Mallia’s inquiry concluded that he should face no repercussions that would affect his current role.
Pressed several times to say whether Ray Zammit had the integrity to head the warden enforcement agency in the light of what Judge Mallia’s inquiry had revealed, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici (who has ministerial responsibility for the wardens’ service) was coy.
He felt that Ray Zammit had “the experience and the qualifications… he has the right ingredients”. He did not say whether these “ingredients” included trustworthiness, though he said he “trusted the integrity” of Judge Mallia’s report. He maintained that he would not have hesitated to remove him from his position of trust if the judge had so recommended.
The key issue at stake in this case is trust. Has Ray Zammit forfeited the trust placed in him as an upholder of the law, since this is fundamentally what his new role involves? By definition, trust means a firm belief in the reliability and integrity of a person. It implies confidence in a person’s judgement, an instinctive, unquestioning belief in and reliance upon somebody.
Judge Mallia’s inquiry cast doubt on this in Ray Zammit’s role as Acting Police Commissioner when he stated that he should have faced internal disciplinary action before leaving the Police Force. Indeed, it is clear that he had contravened the Code of Ethics on grounds of conflicts of interest as well as undermining the professional behaviour for which he was ultimately responsible.
Dr Bonnici’s evasive answers when asked about this do not fill one with confidence that he feels Ray Zammit has passed this test. Yet, he will also be aware that trust in government is one of the most important foundations upon which the legitimacy and sustainability of democratic political systems are built. It directly affects the government’s ability to govern.
Visible justice has not been served in this case. The Justice Minister should reconsider.